> Hi David
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:40 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > For what it is worth, I spend >80% of my time working with
>> > dates/timestamps, trying to turn them into Magnitudes for
>> manipulations.
>> > The other 20%, I really enjoy them as timespans with locales since I
>> deal
>> > with times from around the world.  But the two uses are not quite easy
>> to
>> > deal with - doable, just not quite intuitive.
>> >
>> > -cbc
>>
>> Based on your experience, do you think that it would make sense to have
>> two classes for Day and Date, where one represents date as duration, and
>> the other represents date as magnitude?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> Sorry for the long delay.
>
> Having Date (or Day) as a duration has positive benefits. For instance, I
> want to know if a particular timestamp (when something happened, what we
> call DateAndTime) happened on a particular Date.  The DateAndTime might be
> in a different timezone than the Date we are checking.  Being able to just
> ask 'is this timestamp from this date' is nice:
>
> theDate := ('2016-07-06' asDate start offset: 4 hours) asDate.
> theTime := '2016-07-06 20:34:02' asDateAndTime offset: 8 hours.
> theDate includes: theTime " => false"
> theTime := '2016-07-06 20:34:02' asDateAndTime offset: -8 hours.
> theDate includes: theTime " => true"
>
> Although it is hard to get a date in a certain timezone - is there a
> better
> way than what I wrote above?  Rarely do I need it in my timezone - instead
> I need to specify it directly or not have it present at all.
>
> Most of the time, though, I just as a number, not a duration. I just want
> to show it, sometimes work from its beginning to some other time, and
> ignore that it is a duration.
>
> Looking at how you are interpreting my statement that I want it as a
> magnitude, I think I was using the wrong words.  What I really meant was
> that I wanted it ignore the duration (and most especially the timezone) -
> but not use it as a raw number of some kind.
>
> Thanks,
> -cbc
>
>

Thank you Chris, that is a very good explanation :-)

Dave